• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Do liberals Support Massive Deficits and Debt?

calamity said:
Maybe you should read about how Trump's reckless tax cut will increase the debt by over a Trillion Dollars. /Thread fail
Click to expand...
yes too bad Trump is not a conservative on this matter
 
cuban smokes said:
because he was following Ronny RayGun's method of 'trickle on down' exponential deficits which at the time the GOP folks didn't give a flying **** about ..................
Click to expand...

Bush and all after got us into debt because voters didn't care about fiscal responsibility
 
James972 said:
Bush and all after got us into debt because voters didn't care about fiscal responsibility
Click to expand...

wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong .............. it started B4 GW so, he learned from the earlier GOP 'trickle me Elmos' ................
 
cuban smokes said:
wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong .............. it started B4 GW so, he learned from the earlier GOP 'trickle me Elmos' ................
Click to expand...

so?? debt is the result of liberals killing the BBA's that Repubicans have introduced
 
James972 said:
so?? debt is the result of liberals killing the BBA's that Repubicans have introduced
Click to expand...

1997 -2000 ................ there ............... GW ****ed that pig in the ass ...........
 
cuban smokes said:
because he was following Ronny RayGun's method of 'trickle on down' exponential deficits which at the time the GOP folks didn't give a flying **** about ..................
Click to expand...

Look how well that turned out.
 
Soopairik said:
Look how well that turned out.
Click to expand...

your comments are not really important. Why not tell us if you are conservative or liberal and why. If you want to learn zero in on important questions don't float along on trivia nursing your biases.
 
James972 said:
your comments are not really important. Why not tell us if you are conservative or liberal and why. If you want to learn zero in on important questions don't float along on trivia nursing your biases.
Click to expand...

The same could easily be said for you. And you can tell me first where you lean on the political spectrum considering you're currently leaning as "undisclosed."
 
James972 said:
if there was a 100% apetite for a Balanced Budget Amendment we would have voted for a candidate who promised it to us and a Congress who wnted it too
Click to expand...

That's neither of the major parties. It isn't just liberals despite your attempts to move the goalposts.
 
Troll thread.

Anyone who cannot recognize how the Reps have been on a charge-and-spend spree for well over 20 years now is either a fool or a tool.
 
James972 said:
Because their first priority is more welfare state entitlements that they use to buy votes. This is nothing less than subversion of our democracy and should be illegal. A simple Balanced Budget Amendment would solve this liberal problem.
Click to expand...

The main thing wrong with this thread is the assumption that liberals are just mirror images of people like the OP, conservatives. It goes like this:

'Liberals are Keynesian because they want bigger government. I’m an anti-Keynesian because I want smaller government.'

This is wrong on multiple levels. First of all, while conservatives see smaller government as an end in itself, liberals don't see bigger government the same way. Think about it: while you often see conservatives crow about, say, reducing discretionary spending as a good thing just because the number is down, do you ever see liberals crowing about a rise in spending, never mind what on? Liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; the size of government per se isn’t the objective.

The second thing wrong with this thread is the assumption that entitlement programs, that the OP claims are to "buy votes," is a "subversion of our democracy." According to this line of thinking electing candidates that promise to enact policies that make the lives of their constituents better is somehow illegitimate. Of course, the OP would probably support policies that further enrich the already rich.
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
Wrong of course!! Each American family now owes $200k on debt. Its like having another house that you own and must pay for but cant live in it. The payments comes right out of our standard of living. Worse, we got nothing for it, the problems were not solved but rather made worse, which is why they keep asking for more and more and going further and further in debt. This is desirable??
Click to expand...

The error you're making is assuming that the government's budget is similar to your own budget and obligations. If James972 borrowed $200K to buy a house at a 5% interest rate, he'd be on the hook to the bank lender to pay that debt back in 30 years. James972 would never be able to refinance that loan out another 500 or 1,000 years. It'd be too expensive and you'd die before then.

However the American government, as a government, will exist into perpetuity. It does not die. Therefore the government can extend its debt out into perpetuity and never "pay it back." Additionally it does not cost the government much to do so, because as I mentioned before, it can borrow at bottom of the barrel rates. Remember what I said about investor desire for security?

At times that desire is so strong, that the inflation rate is higher than the rate that the US government is able to borrow at. If you'd recall, inflation is bad for lenders (bond-buyers) and good for borrowers (US government). That's because inflation eats at the value of the currency. In 2017 we had 2.1% inflation, meaning that if $100 was lent, in 2018 the $100 paid back is actually worth $97.9. Which ultimately means that the government finds that lenders will freely lend it it at a loss to the lender.

Which means that the US government could feasibly run a deficit and after a year owe less money, due to normal inflation rates.

James972 said:
Business debt is 100% different if you go in debt and use money to make bad investments you go bankrupt thus you are limited and bankrupted. If only our liberal politicians faced such consequences. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

Nope, because that's wrong. For example, Apple is the world's most profitable company but currently has around $200 billion dollars of debt. For sure, Apple could easily pay off that debt. It has $45 billion in revenue per year and something like $20 billion in cash lying around in its bank accounts.

However Apple doesn't pay off that debt. That's because like the US government it would be stupid for Apple to attempt to do so. Again, that's because since Apple has easy access to cheap capital. Therefore by putting itself into debt, Apple is able to invest up to $200 billion in its operations while only making $45 billion a year.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... would it be equally cost-beneficial if roughly half of other workers paid payroll and income taxes and used fake or stolen SSNs?
Click to expand...

... yes?

Illegal immigrants do not have the ability to claim federals benefits. Obviously there's shared benefits like federally funded highway or national defense, but illegal immigrants are not qualified to claim any sort of federal benefits like SS, housing assistance, medicaid or food stamps. When in scenarios an illegal immigrant has been able to get assistance, it's a total exception and has been done through error and incompetence on the government's part.

Hell, the SSA maintains a $1.2 trillion dollar account called the "Earnings Suspense File" from tax returns it cannot identify or verify and will not allow to be withdrawn at retirement until it's proven that the tax return is from a legit citizen.

Truly if you do the Google searches, there are a lot of anti-immigrant groups like to try to spin the numbers that illegal immigrants cost the federal taxpayer. It's a lot of wonky math and suspect assumptions that these groups are making to try to make a point about illegal immigration. But in all actuality the presence of illegal immigrants is a massive cash cow for the federal government and taxpayers. We have the complete ability to collect taxes from 12 million people, but literally none of the obligations.

States and local taxes are a bit different, because on those levels it varies as to what illegal immigrants are able to claim. Some state and local jurisdictions have granted illegal immigrants the right to claim specific benefits. However in general both state and local government are easily able to collect taxes from illegal immigrants (property, sales, fees, etc.), and by and large are able to deny all obligations back to them.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
... yes?

Illegal immigrants do not have the ability to claim federals benefits. Obviously there's shared benefits like federally funded highway or national defense, but illegal immigrants are not qualified to claim any sort of federal benefits like SS, housing assistance, medicaid or food stamps. When in scenarios an illegal immigrant has been able to get assistance, it's a total exception and has been done through error and incompetence on the government's part.

Hell, the SSA maintains a $1.2 trillion dollar account called the "Earnings Suspense File" from tax returns it cannot identify or verify and will not allow to be withdrawn at retirement until it's proven that the tax return is from a legit citizen.

Truly if you do the Google searches, there are a lot of anti-immigrant groups like to try to spin the numbers that illegal immigrants cost the federal taxpayer. It's a lot of wonky math and suspect assumptions that these groups are making to try to make a point about illegal immigration. But in all actuality the presence of illegal immigrants is a massive cash cow for the federal government and taxpayers. We have the complete ability to collect taxes from 12 million people, but literally none of the obligations.

States and local taxes are a bit different, because on those levels it varies as to what illegal immigrants are able to claim. Some state and local jurisdictions have granted illegal immigrants the right to claim specific benefits. However in general both state and local government are easily able to collect taxes from illegal immigrants (property, sales, fees, etc.), and by and large are able to deny all obligations back to them.
Click to expand...

Public preK-12 education costs, about 1/3 of state government expenses, are not covered by low wage workers, whether they are legal or not. Arguing that adding more low wage immigrant workers is an economic benefit is not a given.

Dan Patrick notes education absorbs 52 percent of budgeted state spending | PolitiFact Texas
 
brothern said:
Low wage workers don't pay state sales or property taxes?
Click to expand...

That is not what I said at all. What I said was that low wage workers do not pay enough taxes to cover the costs of services used by themselves and their dependents. Obviously, if that were the case then there would be no cause for any progressive income taxation and caps could be placed on property and income taxation. If someone makes $20K and spent every penny of that on rent subject to property tax and/or goods subject to sales tax then they still would not cover the cost of a single K-12 student.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is not what I said at all. What I said was that low wage workers do not pay enough taxes to cover the costs of services used by themselves and their dependents. Obviously, if that were the case then there would be no cause for any progressive income taxation and caps could be placed on property and income taxation. If someone makes $20K and spent every penny of that on rent subject to property tax and/or goods subject to sales tax then they still would not cover the cost of a single K-12 student.
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand. I couldn't figure out the connection between your post and mine. The best I could figure was something about how low wage workers don't contribute to education? Which obviously they do because no one is able to self-exempt from property or sales taxes.

... but yes, you are correct that low wage workers don't cover their share of local government services on a per year basis.

However I'd argue that is a necessary expense. One of the many reason we fund universal, mandatory primary and secondary educational services is that through education we are able to improve the life circumstances of most individuals. This enables a larger percent to become successful, high-wage earners instead of the paltry number we'd get if it was expected of each individual to bear the entire cost of their education.

We're also getting way off topic from why debts/deficits exist.
 
brothern said:
Ah, I understand. I couldn't figure out the connection between your post and mine. The best I could figure was something about how low wage workers don't contribute to education? Which obviously they do because no one is able to self-exempt from property or sales taxes.

... but yes, you are correct that low wage workers don't cover their share of local government services on a per year basis.

However I'd argue that is a necessary expense. One of the many reason we fund universal, mandatory primary and secondary educational services is that through education we are able to improve the life circumstances of most individuals. This enables a larger percent to become successful, high-wage earners instead of the paltry number we'd get if it was expected of each individual to bear the entire cost of their education.

We're also getting way off topic from why debts/deficits exist.
Click to expand...

Actually we are not - the relationship between tax revenue and government spending is undeniably the cause of deficits. The more folks that you have whose taxation does not cover their cost to society then the more other members of that society must pay in taxation to cover the resulting shortfall.
 
brothern said:
Which is why they just passed a tax bill that will cost the federal government $1.75 trillion over the next decade?!
Click to expand...

That's not just $1.75 trillion over the next decade, it's $1.75 trillion more than is already schedules to add to the debt over the next decade.

The reality is that Republicans and conservatives only care about deficits when they are trying to constrain a Democratic president. When they are in power, as Dick Cheney famously stated, "deficits don't matter" and was proven again last month when they passed their tax-plan.
 
calamity said:
Maybe you should read about how Trump's reckless tax cut will increase the debt by over a Trillion Dollars. /Thread fail
James972 said:
yes too bad Trump is not a conservative on this matter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Trump signed it but it was a Republican Congress that passed it. Many of them (if not all) consider themselves conservatives. So, if people who claim to be conservatives give lip service to what conservatives say they believe in, then they are hypocrites -- and you need to question what values that they really hold. From my view, it is lowering taxes for the rich donors that keep them in office.
 
calamity said:
Well, on that point, you actually are correct.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in this thread he has said Bush ran up huge deficits because he wasn't a real Republican, and because Trump is running up deficits too that means Trump isn't a real conservative.. BUT, get this, BUT he's also saying our debt and deficits are all the Liberals fault. lol.... 2 out of the last 3 presidents who are/were REPUBLICAN ran up deficits, but it's the Liberals fault? lol

That doesn't make any sense.
 
James972 said:
Because their first priority is more welfare state entitlements that they use to buy votes. This is nothing less than subversion of our democracy and should be illegal. A simple Balanced Budget Amendment would solve this liberal problem.
Click to expand...

When was the last time the Republicans reduced the actual debt or balanced the budget? Both parties love spending, the left for welfare programs and help for the People and the right on Big Brother policies and infinity War. Spending is a Republocrat trait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom